Guest

Boeing Could Have Saved The 737-900.

Wed Jan 02, 2002 2:26 pm

I think that if Boeing would have added a plughatch door on each side right after the wing (like on some 757s) on the 737-900 along with the 8 other exits. They could have lengthened it a little bit, and made it longer. This could have attracted many more airlines, and it would have seated more passengers. I do not see the point of the 739 when you got a 738 flying. Boeing completely Wasted the -900, when they could have saved it for something better designed, and something that could seat more while filling the 737 purpose. (Refer to the 757-300 design. But take the door just before the wing out). That is what I am talking about. Does anyone agree.?
 
Guest

RE: Boeing Could Have Saved The 737-900.

Wed Jan 02, 2002 2:32 pm

One thing I forgot to mention. When I was touring N30401 in IAH in July. The Captain of the flight boarded and told me that he wanted to fly in a 739. I had to sit there and tell him, "Uh, You're standing in one dude." He sat there and looked at me, looked at the airworthiness certificate, back at me, and said "COOL!!!" I find it pretty sad that the pilot couldn't even tell the difference.  Sad. Good thing they have the same type rating, or that captain would have been in a jam.
 
hkgspotter1
Posts: 5750
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:43 pm

RE: Boeing Could Have Saved The 737-900.

Wed Jan 02, 2002 2:35 pm

Thats funny !!.

What can they do to save the 737-600, 757-300 and 767-400 ??
 
Guest

Can You Tell The Difference

Wed Jan 02, 2002 2:36 pm

If this had no registration number, I would mistake it for a 738, actually, I wouldn't know. They are both practically the same thing with different model numbers, except one is stretched a few inches (like the 731,and 732)


Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Jason Knutson

 
AA737-823
Posts: 4905
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2000 11:10 am

RE: Boeing Could Have Saved The 737-900.

Wed Jan 02, 2002 2:39 pm

well, if you're standing in an airplane, it's kinda hard to tell what it is.

I mean, really... I can't tell a 733 from a 735. From the inside, that is. And I wouldn't expect a pilot to be able to either.

I think the 739 is a waste too. I think Boeing is kinda grasping for straws here. I don't see Continental and KLM and Korean's orders as being justification for a new subtype. But that's my opinion.

I don't think it would be worthwhile even if they had added two exits and more seats. WHAT'S THE POINT? I know, I know, it seats more in a two class config than a 738. But so what? a few extra seats aren't much anything. AND, with the world's airline industry the way it is, what does anybody want with a larger 737? Over here in the good ol' US of A we can't fill MD-80s, much less 727s and 738s. Who needs a 739?

Randy
 
Guest

RE: Boeing Could Have Saved The 737-900.

Wed Jan 02, 2002 2:42 pm

Boeing has had their heads up their a**es lately. If I were an airline, I would NOT buy a 753. I would buy a 763 instead. I would not buy a 736. I would buy a 737-700 instead, and I would not buy a 764. I would buy a 777 instead. Boeing is trying desperately to compete with Airbus, but I think Airbus is actually CONCENTRATING on what they are building. Not saying Uh.. Let's see what Phil has up his a** today. (No I do not hate Boeing, but they sure are doing alot of dumb things lately). Another Dumb thing would have been to cancel the 717. At least Phil got his head out of his rear, and paid attention to Harry Stonecipher for once. Whew.

I wish William Allen was still president of Boeing. He would set it straight. The dude who thought of the 727, and 737-100, and 747, and 707. He thought of jets that the airline industry NEEDED. Not jets that were useless when you got the same thing already out there.
 
VirginA340
Posts: 2556
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 12:35 pm

RE: Boeing Could Have Saved The 737-900.

Wed Jan 02, 2002 3:05 pm

The 737-900 is a waste of time and space. Prop that thing up to longer landing gears and add more exits and it'll look like a 752! I think they should've focused more on the SST market. I'd love to fly in a plane that'll reduce my JFK-LHR trip to 3-4 hours. The Concorde will not be around much longer and there is still no sutable replacement.

Other waste of aircraft is the 767-400 the thing flies less further than the 767-200 and 300. So far I only know of CO that is flying it interntationally. DL is still flying it on the ATL-Florida routes.

The 737-700 is way better than the unpopular 736.

The 757-300 is way too long. I think that airlines should buy a 762 or a 763. With only one aisle and too long the 753 takes longer for people to exit and have the cleaning people come on. I think I'll stick with the 757-200

The best aircraft that Boeing ever made was the 727-100 and 200 737s with the exceptions of the 500, 600 and 900 The best of the 737s were the 200 and 700. The 747-400, 757-200, 767-200ER and the 777
"FUIMUS"
 
iah_ewr
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2001 3:24 pm

RE: Boeing Could Have Saved The 737-900.

Wed Jan 02, 2002 5:11 pm

ValuejetMD-81, You can't buy a 763 instead of a 753. They serve completely different markets. 763s are good for longer haul, high yield routes that often include cargo. The 753 is designed to ferry leisure pax from places like NYC to FL. That's exactly why CO ordered the 753.

As for a 764 instead of a 777, they too are not designed as substitutes. Using CO as an example again, the 777 has roughly 50 more seats which on many routes cannot be filled. Thus the 764 represents a more practical choice (Though the 763ER might be an even better choice). And as for the range issue, CO was planning on starting IAH-AMS with the 764, which is a pretty long way. I'm not saying that one is better than the other, but I am saying that different aircraft fill different needs. Just because CO is the only airline flying 764s across the Atlantic doesn't mean its a waste (just look at the profitably in recent quarters compared to UAL, AMR, DAL).

Bigger is not always better, particularly when it comes to the airline industry. It can be debated over and over again, but Boeing has different derivitives of aircraft because there are different markets for each. Some markets are certainly smaller (the 736 and 739 being examples) but that doesn't mean they are a waste. As profits become even harder to attain, it is increasingly important for airlines to match the aircraft to the demand for the route. You may not like the length of the 753, but chances are you'll be seeing more of them as they are one of the most cost efficient aircraft on the market. Putting a 763 on many of the same routes just bleeds red ink.
 
jmc1975
Posts: 2897
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2000 10:57 am

737-900 Vs. 757-100

Wed Jan 02, 2002 5:26 pm

I was wondering if Boeing had done a cost analyisis of its aircraft when it developed the 737-900 and compared it to the 757-100 which once considered for production over 20 years ago. Even though the capacities would be similar, wouldn't it be more economical for airlines to buy the 737-900 anyway?
.......
 
777-200
Posts: 959
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2000 11:11 pm

RE: Boeing Could Have Saved The 737-900.

Wed Jan 02, 2002 5:40 pm

"ValuejetMD-81, You can't buy a 763 instead of a 753. They serve completely different markets."


um... IAH_EWR i think he was talking about the 763 not the 763ER


767-300
Passengers
Typical 3-class configuration 218
Typical 2-class configuration 269
Typical 1-class configuration up to 351

757-300
Passengers
Typical 3-class configuration 243
Typical 2-class configuration 280
Typical 1-class configuration N/A

Delta and many other Airline's use mostly 763 to major Leisure destinations.
I think the 767-400, 737-900 and the 757-300 were a mistake.

Another Day, Another Dollar.... Young Jeezy
 
IndianicWorld
Posts: 2806
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 11:32 am

RE: Boeing Could Have Saved The 737-900.

Wed Jan 02, 2002 5:49 pm

They were obviously mistakes....thats why they are all so unpopular. If they were good business decisions, they would have been ordered more.

What do most people think is a " succesfully " airliner sales wise? By this I mean what is the level you would call a good mark to judge sucess sales wise?

ciao
 
iah_ewr
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2001 3:24 pm

RE: Boeing Could Have Saved The 737-900.

Wed Jan 02, 2002 6:32 pm

Even if we are talking just the 763 and not the ER, the 753 has a lower operating cost. Granted, many passengers prefer a widebody to a narrowbody (myself inlcluded), but why would an airline put a 763 on a route that can be served by a 753 at a lower cost. "Delta and may other Airline's" use 767s to major leisure destinations because they have so many of them to begin with. The cost of replacing their existing fleet with 753s would be greater than the cost savings they would achieve (basic strategic decision making). The 753 is a relatively new design. Give it some time, and it might become more "successful" (at least based on sales) particularly once airlines start realizing the need to cut costs even more.

BTW, Continental has all three of these so-called mistakes, yet their quarterly performance has been far better than AMR, DAL, and UAL even before 9-11.
 
Boeing Nut
Posts: 5078
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 2:42 am

RE: Boeing Could Have Saved The 737-900.

Wed Jan 02, 2002 10:57 pm

I wasn't aware that the 737-900 needed "saving". This is an aircraft that was developed to fill a "niche" market. As is the 736 and 753. These aircraft weren't developed to be runaway successes for Boeing. They were designed to fill a customers needs. Regarding the 753, mark my words, the orders will start to come in. Once other airlines see how much money the 753 is producing for ATA, Continental and NWA, they will be knocking at Boeing's door. It will be the 752 for Boeing all over again.
I'm not a real aeronautical engineer, I just play one on Airliners.net.
 
SafetyDude
Posts: 3654
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2001 10:02 am

RE: Boeing Could Have Saved The 737-900.

Wed Jan 02, 2002 11:11 pm

I wasn't aware of a 739!  Laugh out loud
Yes, I do agree they should have made it longer for ailrines that like the 737 but don't want a 757.

Delta and US Airways might have bought it iof it was bigger for their shuttle routes. I have flown Metrojet and Delta Express and all the time they were over booked and I know the 739 would be filled to the max, or at least in peak times.

I do agree it is a waste of Boeing time. Perhaps they should have scratched the 739 and spend more time with the 747X.

Airplane Model


2001 $ in Millions

737-600 40.5 - 49.0
737-700 46.5 - 55.0
737-800 57.0 - 64.5
737-900 60.0 - 68.5

(source: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/prices/index.html)
I don't see why an airline would pay more for a 900 when they could pratically get the same thing for less. (I'm saying this as if comparing an AC with the same features)

My $.02
-Will
"She Flew For What We Stand For"
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Boeing Could Have Saved The 737-900.

Thu Jan 03, 2002 12:00 am

Firstly, how much do you think it cost Boeing to develop the 739?! NOTHING!! Just a 738 with fuselage plugs added! And for that minimal investment you've got a new subtype! Boeing probably made a profit after 10 airframes were sold.

All though it doesn't seem to be a success, they've added a new type, with little investment, and are making a profit.

Although we think they should add more exits to boost its max pax, don't you think Boeing will have thought about it too?! They're not stupid! There's no point in adding doors (increased weight, production costs, development costs, more expensive plane....) if no one wants to buy a plane like that!

The 739 at the moment is a very nice a/c. It allow airlines (like Alaska, Continental and KLM) to keep capasity at or around 738 levels, while having more premium seats, or more legroom. It's not just about squeezing as many people are you can in, y'know.
Your bone's got a little machine
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Boeing Could Have Saved The 737-900.

Thu Jan 03, 2002 12:05 am

In the past, Boeing built aircraft that it THOUGHT the airlines needed. Now it builds aircraft that the airlines WANT.

KLM could have concievably gone to Boeing and have said "ok, we'll buy 737NGs, but we want a 737 bigger than the 738." As i said before, it cost Boeing almost NOTHING to achieve this, and voila you have a new subtype!

A 739 would be cheaper than a 757-100, as the 757 would be heavier. Boeing have always stretch a/c. When they've shorteren a/c, they have tended to be too heavy, and not much of a success. (747SP, 735)
Your bone's got a little machine
 
Guest

RE: Boeing Could Have Saved The 737-900.

Thu Jan 03, 2002 12:17 am

The best aircraft that Boeing ever made was the 727-100 and 200 737s with the exceptions of the 500, 600 and 900 The best of the 737s were the 200 and 700. The 747-400, 757-200, 767-200ER and the 777

Is this just your opinion? In particular, the 737s, the 200 did not rank among the best of aircraft for Boeing, historically. The 100 and 200 series, although needed at the time, were very slow sellers compared to the "new classic" 300-500 series. The 300 was really the plane that revolutionized low capacity, high frequency travel. It was so efficient, so powerful and so much more quiet than the 200 it replaced, plus it added an extra 20 seats, that it clearly went down in history as the catalyst for the world's best selling airplane. The 700 will most likely do what the 300 did 20 years ago. Transform the domestic industry once mre, though with admittedly a little more added competition. I'd say the 300 and 700 are Boeing's best 737s.
 
wingman
Posts: 2829
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

RE: Boeing Could Have Saved The 737-900.

Thu Jan 03, 2002 2:55 am

Correct me if I'm wrong, but by comparing the number of years on sale to number of units sold, both the 753 and 764 are on pace to best the entire 340 line from Airbus. Does this mean the 340 should be cancelled and Airbus was completely stupid for developing it? Just curious.
 
ILUV767
Posts: 3035
Joined: Mon May 29, 2000 2:21 pm

RE: Boeing Could Have Saved The 737-900.

Thu Jan 03, 2002 3:08 am

The 738 and the 739 have the same maximum seating capacity, but, almost no airlines will fill them to the max. Most airlines operating in a two class configuration on the 738 will have it seat close to 150 passengers. I belive that CO has 150 seats in their 738s with the mid cabin lav, and AA has 146. That is no where near 189 seats. The 739 in a two class configuration seats 167 passengers (CO's 739s).

I checked the numbers at Continental's website, and the 739 has exactly 10 less economy seats than theh 757. There are 6 less seats in first. With this very similar configuration, Continental can place the 739 on the florida routes (which they are doing) to move 757s on to higher yielding routes. Thus...the plane is filling a niche.

The 757-300 has the lowest seat/mile costs. While it seats over 200 passengers, the 753 can fly routes mainly to leasure destinations (CO again) to move 767s off of that, and on to higher yeilding destinations.

I L U V 7 6 7
 
b757300
Posts: 3914
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 10:27 pm

RE: Boeing Could Have Saved The 737-900.

Thu Jan 03, 2002 3:30 am

Actually, of all 737's sold, 1114 were 737-200's.
"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
 
cdfmxtech
Posts: 1319
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2000 11:37 am

RE: Boeing Could Have Saved The 737-900.

Thu Jan 03, 2002 4:12 am

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737family/multimedia.html

Click on the Continental and Boeing...Work Hard, Fly Right video

COs 737 fleet is ingenious. You've got a B737-700 flying to CUN and a B737-900 flying to LAS - both from EWR. The 700 is oversold and the -900 is about where the -700 capacity is. U can swap the aircraft and not have to change flightcrews. You make money on both flights.

Like many have mentioned already, the B757-300 is a people mover, more than any otehr aircraft we fly.

The B7674 is not a B777, and we don't try to fly it like one. However, they will replace the DC10.
I believe the intent was as follows.

B767-400>>DC10
B767-200>>B757 TransAtlantic

Somtething like. There is a hell of a alot of flexibility w/COs fleet. Just watch

 
Notar520AC
Posts: 1517
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2001 6:53 am

RE: Boeing Could Have Saved The 737-900.

Thu Jan 03, 2002 4:38 am

The 737 should only be so long though- it was made for short to medium haul routes with a small to medium pax capacity- IT WAS DESIGNED FOR SHORTER ROUTES WITH LESS PASSENGERS. I do not disagree with the fact that the -900 model was wasted, however, it looks like the whole airplane is on steroids. Instead of a longer 737, you could get a smaller 767 with longer range, and more pax capacity. Every airplane has a purpose, and was manufactured for that purpose.
BMW - The Ultimate Driving Machine
 
Cleco
Posts: 545
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2000 4:21 am

RE: Boeing Could Have Saved The 737-900.

Thu Jan 03, 2002 4:52 am

There has to be some reason they lengthened it, does the lenght of the -900 make it elligeble (sp???) for some rating or something like that?

Jake
EMBRY-RIDDLE BABY
 
User avatar
B737-112
Posts: 828
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 1999 6:01 pm

RE: Boeing Could Have Saved The 737-900.

Thu Jan 03, 2002 4:52 am

The 739 is perfect for Alaska Airlines, along with other carriers that do not operate the -800 series. Continental may not need the -800 and the -900 operating together I agree. AS uses the 737-700 on a certain route and during a particular time of season the plane will always be filled up, that's when the extra seats on the 739 comes in. It works out perfect.
 
Guest

RE: Boeing Could Have Saved The 737-900.

Thu Jan 03, 2002 5:34 am

The 739 could go great with Alaska. But Continental already has the 738. If they wanted the 739, they should have gotten winglets at least. The 739 is a waste of time for CO. They don't have to have every 737 doncha know.
 
ContinentalFan
Posts: 343
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2000 2:47 am

RE: Continental & ALPA: Match Made In Hell!

Thu Jan 03, 2002 6:32 am

Yes, Continental doesn't have to have every 737, but the fact that they do means that it's for a reason. Like others have pointed out before, the max passenger capacities of the 738 and 739 are the same because of exit config., but in the real world, with two class seating, the 739 slots in perfectly between the 738 and 752.

It seems most posters disdain for the 739 comes from some sense of aesthetics (too long, looks funny, why stretch a proven design when you can build a new plan from scratch, etc.), but heck, if it works it works.

Mike.
 
B727-200
Posts: 1008
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 1999 11:28 am

RE: Boeing Could Have Saved The 737-900.

Thu Jan 03, 2002 6:34 am


I think you may find that the -900 is the maximum fuselage length to efficiently match with the current B737 wing. If it was indeed more than a fuselage plug bigger than a B738 then modifications would need to be made to the wing (or possibly a completely new wing).

I do agree with the argument that it is a waste. Having the same MTOW as the -800 version means that you are severely reducing range if you exceed similar capacity levels to the -800. This is why Boeing sell the aircraft as a "premium" product aircraft version that would be used for higher premium seat configurations or greater seat pitch, not for higher seat numbers in general (as mentioned by someone above).

Rgs,
B727-200.
 
LJ
Posts: 4127
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 1999 8:28 pm

RE: Boeing Could Have Saved The 737-900.

Thu Jan 03, 2002 6:45 am

77236ER is right why shouldn't Boeing offer the 739? Unless Boeing is desparate to loose customers to Airbus I don't see any reason why they shouldn't offer one. Moreover as I think KLM would have seriously considered flying Airbus if Boeing wouldn't have offered the 739 (KLM doesn't want the B757). This would have meant no 739 and no 738 for KLM and no 738 and no 73G for Transavia.

BTW I prefer the sight of a B737-900 above the sight of a B757-200. Moreover as you don't really see the difference between the 738 and 739 (unless you see them taxing next to eachother).

Regards
Laurens
 
777gk
Posts: 1488
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2000 3:04 am

RE: Boeing Could Have Saved The 737-900.

Thu Jan 03, 2002 8:31 am

IMO, the 737-800 will prove to be the best-selling 737 ever, just look at the massive firm orders it holds with 3 of America's top 5 airlines- American (118), Delta (132), and Continental (82).

Although the 737-700 beats it in firm orders by 4 aircraft, the market for the 737-800 appears much greater as the -800 is the ultimate 727 replacement.
 
meechy36
Posts: 299
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2001 10:55 pm

RE: Boeing Could Have Saved The 737-900.

Thu Jan 03, 2002 8:47 am

I only hope that when things level out that AA orders the 900.
At AA, the 738 only has 134 seats, 20 F/C and 114 main cabin. It is quite a nice aircraft, I have been qualified on it for about 1 1/2 years and love working it. We use it on a mix of medium and long haul (transcons), it has just about the same coach galley as a 757 with 40 less pax to serve, it has audio entertainment plus movies and short subjects. The only con that I can think of is the F/C galley, it is really quite small for a 20 seat cabin.
From a flight attendants view it is a great piece of equipment and talking to the cockpit they feel the same way from their end.

Cheers,

Mike-BOS

 
Guest

RE: Boeing Could Have Saved The 737-900.

Thu Jan 03, 2002 10:37 am

767-300
Passengers
Typical 3-class configuration 218
Typical 2-class configuration 269
Typical 1-class configuration up to 351

757-300
Passengers
Typical 3-class configuration 243
Typical 2-class configuration 280
Typical 1-class configuration N/A


Actually, the charter config for a 753 is 279, so I have no clue where you get the 2-class 280 figure from. And the difference in seats is that many airlines using the 763 have larger first class seats. The 762 would be a better comparison. Secondly, a narrowbody is cheaper to operate than a widebody, so it turns a better profit for the Florida/Vegas runs.
 
Guest

RE: Boeing Could Have Saved The 737-900.

Fri Jan 04, 2002 3:04 am

Well if the point was to offer more legroom, then why didn't boeing do that. the 739 has 2 more rows in it. So if it has more legroom, it isn't much.
 
777-200
Posts: 959
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2000 11:11 pm

RE: Boeing Could Have Saved The 737-900.

Fri Jan 04, 2002 3:15 am

i got it from the Boeing Web Site Lowfareair
Another Day, Another Dollar.... Young Jeezy
 
User avatar
asqx
Posts: 592
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 4:56 pm

RE: Boeing Could Have Saved The 737-900.

Fri Jan 04, 2002 5:23 am

777-200 misquoted the Boeing site. For the 757-300, it should be:

757-300
Passengers
Typical 3-class configuration N/A
Typical 2-class configuration 243
Typical 1-class configuration 280

Boeing doesn't list any 3-class configurations for its narrowbody aircraft.
 
EIPremier
Posts: 1462
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2000 8:17 am

RE: Boeing Could Have Saved The 737-900.

Sat Jan 05, 2002 8:15 am

AS was the 739 launch customer, and indeed, the plane is well-suited to Alaska's route system. The 739 allows them to increase the number seats available for sale without adding more flights at peak hours on high frequency routes such as SEA-LAX and SEA-ANC. This is especially important to AS at airports such as LAX, where gate space is limited. Furthermore, the 739 has a large cargo hold (even larger than the 757), and thus is well-suited to Alaska's operations, as Alaska is a big cargo carrier (especially on the SEA-ANC route).
 
EIPremier
Posts: 1462
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2000 8:17 am

RE: Boeing Could Have Saved The 737-900.

Sat Jan 05, 2002 8:21 am

I know someone is going to question what I said about the cargo space on the 739, so I went to the Boeing website to get the exact measurements....

739 cargo space:1,835 cu ft
757-200 (standard passenger arrangement): 1,670 cu ft
757-300: 2,370 cu ft

The 739 does not have nearly the range that the 739 does, especially when the 739 has a full load of cargo, fuel and passengers. However, carriers like Alaska are only looking at using the plane on 1000-1500 mile routes, so range is not really an issue. Plus, Alaska does not have to incur the additional maintenance/training costs of adding an additional fleet type by sticking with the 739.
 
N400QX
Posts: 1981
Joined: Sun May 06, 2001 9:51 am

RE: Boeing Could Have Saved The 737-900.

Sat Jan 05, 2002 8:50 am

I agree with Boeing Nut and ElPremier on this one...

The 737-900 is a great aircraft to fill customer's desires for a 737 bigger than the -800 (carrying 15 more passengers), just a ton of cargo room as ElPremier said, and a little shorter range.

This fits the bill for launch customer Alaska Airlines (received the worlds first -900 last year... reallly nice plane, btw), which has ordered 13 (by my count) so far.

Take a look at their (all-Boeing  Big thumbs up) fleet and you'll see that each aircraft fills a specific role for Alaska. You've got the -900 for heavily-travelled routes and big cargo runs, the -700 for long range flights (ie ANC-ORD, SEA-IAD, SEA-DCA, soon to LAX-Cancun), the -400 and -83 for the regular run-of-the-mill flights, and the -200C for inter-Alaska/heavy cargo flights.

I think the 739 is the perfect addition to the fleet, much better than the 738 would have been. Its not a 'waste' or anything of the sort.

N400QX
 
JU101
Posts: 831
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2001 1:57 am

RE: Boeing Could Have Saved The 737-900.

Sat Jan 05, 2002 9:17 am

One thing that doesnt make sense to me about Boeing, is how fast they are adding aircraft to their production lines and design tables.

CLASSICS
B737-300
B737-400
B737-500

NEWER GENERATION
B737-600
B737-700
B737-800

Lets get things straight. Could someone really tell the difference between a B737-500 and B737-600? They are identical in size. The same goes for the comprison between the B737-300 and B737-700. It seemed to me that the classics were too short lived, since the new generation 737s came out of the sky in just a few years to follow.

In addition, i seem to lack respect for the B757s, since airlines tend to put seating in really dense capacities. Nevertheless, i would rather operate stretched version of the B737s, which have commonality with other aircraft, rathen than operating a different aircraft altogether.

Anyone agree or disagree???